Latest
» Well, at least Michael Jackson saved the BBC from enduring more faux-outrage over its expenses http://tr.im/pRdc 15 hrs ago

» "some people have gathered where we're pointing our camera. And that's the news" http://tr.im/pR4E (love it) 15 hrs ago

» Thanks @moviegrrl and @tcgriffin for #followfriday 16 hrs ago

» Birmingham based Jewish group slams Obama's speech in Cairo (only a few weeks late) http://tr.im/pQVA 16 hrs ago

» It's probably worth mentioning Iran & #iranelection in all tweets, regardless, so it doesn't get buried in public perception 17 hrs ago

More updates...


  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sajini W
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Prince Harry caught on film calling Asian soldier ‘Paki’


    by Leon on 10th January, 2009 at 10:14 pm    

    harry

    Prince Harry was last night embroiled in another race shame row after calling a fellow soldier “a Paki”. The shocking comment came during an Army training course - and was captured on film taken by Harry HIMSELF.

    Last night the third-in-line to the throne was forced to issue a grovelling apology for the appalling jibe. Senior defence sources said there was now a serious question mark over whether he could remain in the Army. The high ranking Army source said: “Any ordinary officer would be asked to resign immediately for making such a comment.”

    MPs and other public figures reacted with shock and anger at the outburst.

    Royal insiders said the incident - which will spark outrage worldwide - happened three years ago.

    Curious, I wonder why this has come to light now? Apparently it was a ‘light hearted remark’ taken with ‘affection’. On the face of it it looks like Harry takes after his Grandfather Prince Phillip…

    Sunny updates: the video is here.



      |     |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: Current affairs, Race politics




    96 Comments below   |  

    1. SE — on 10th January, 2009 at 10:38 pm  

      This just goes with what I’ve said, the Masses support persecuting brown people.

      “Curious, I wonder why this has come to light now?”

      A white soldier’s life is worth more then those filthy little brown boys!

    2. SE — on 10th January, 2009 at 10:38 pm  

      He also looks like that racist fat cunt Bernard Manning (A little bit) and people shouldn’t be surprised by this, how long ago did he wear the Nazi uniform?
      He’s just out to give the BNP validation isn’t he?

    3. Sunny — on 10th January, 2009 at 10:54 pm  

      LOL

    4. blah — on 10th January, 2009 at 11:13 pm  

      Surely that should be “British gentleman of Pakistani extraction whose taxes are paying for my lay about priveleged lifestyle?

    5. Cath Elliott — on 10th January, 2009 at 11:27 pm  

      Apparently he also used the term “raghead.”

      Oh, and on the positive side, he also insulted the Queen :)

    6. Amrit — on 11th January, 2009 at 1:01 am  

      ‘Yay’ for the Royal Family… *rolls eyes* Concrete proof that years of upper-class inbreeding results in, er, lower levels of intelligence.

      Lol @ blah. On-point!

    7. Hackette — on 11th January, 2009 at 1:24 am  

      Sky are using this as an opportunity to use the word ‘paki’ as much as they can.

    8. Rayyan — on 11th January, 2009 at 2:07 am  

      No surprise @ Sky there! This useless, inbred, braindead chump will never be our head of state - after Queen Liz moves on to the great royal court in the sky, we’re becoming a republic. Fact. The people are a bit bored of seeing our money spent on a bunch of foolios who embody the most crass aspects of our culture.

      Call me Sherlock, but it comes as no surprise that kind of language is still tolerated within the armed forces. He barely got off with a slap on the wrist for the tasteless uniform he wore a few years back, and I reckon he will get away with it this time. What is surprising is that he was stupid enough to film himself saying it - then again, given his heritage, perhaps it was inevitable

    9. Roger — on 11th January, 2009 at 3:18 am  

      “Our armies swore terribly in Flanders, cried my uncle Toby,-but nothing to this.”

      Tasteless and not-very-funny jokes filmed in private and we’re supposed to take it seriously and be outraged? I’d be much more interested in the table-talk of Rupert Murdoch. I think I’d be much more worried by it too.

    10. Shahzad — on 11th January, 2009 at 4:02 am  

      Oh come on lighten up you miserable gits - have none of you got mates of different races that you have the odd bit of racial banter with? apparently “ahmed” (the ‘paki’) was a popular member of the platoon, and Harry was obviously just pissing around. I think it’s quite funny (if you watch the video on the Sun’s website) and shows Harry as just a normal bloke. I have mates of all different races and we joke about all sorts of shit without anyone getting worked up over it, what’s the big deal exactly? I’m of pakistani origin myself.

    11. Janeiro — on 11th January, 2009 at 5:23 am  

      SE: How do you hope to combat bigotry when you use misogynistic slurs to condemn racism? You can’t say one form of bigotry is wrong while embracing another-at the same time, no less! Regardless of how popular the c-word is in the UK, it’s still obviously misogynistic.

      What nonsense.

    12. Trofim — on 11th January, 2009 at 9:57 am  

      This reminds me of a documentary a while back when the egregious Marcus Howe, who spends every waking second scanning the world for a nanogram of racism, was in an infantry barracks talking to a black chap and his white mates, brothers in arms, whose relationship was like that of brothers, esprit de corps, etc. The black bloke was called Chalky or Blacky by his mates, which to him and his mates was a sign of friendship and solidarity. Simply the fact that they used the term was evidence that they were at ease with him, and he with them. Marcus Howe, true to form, blustered and raged as benefits a bigwig in the indignation industry who has at hand the ideal scenario in which to prove his credentials and chalk up another case. The black chap was nonplussed and seriously annoyed that this self-appointed finger-wagger had the effrontery to tell him and his mates how they should address each other. But the left-wing mindset is about nothing, if it is not about control, and being upset, annoyed, insulted by proxy, that is, on someone’s behalf, whether they want it or not, is a very important and much-used tool in race-obsessed circles. The Alibhai-Browns of the world will be venting their anger left right and centre, whereas all over the UK ordinary people will hear or read this, and move just that little bit rightwards, particularly if they’ve just been seen a picture of a blokes with arab tea towels round their faces trying to bash coppers in London. The Samizdata post headline sums up their thoughts in a nutshell: “Shock horror: Prince Harry is a normal bloke”.

    13. Trofim — on 11th January, 2009 at 10:03 am  

      By the way SE 10.38 - that sounds like a blatantly fattist or sizeist remark about the late Mr Manning. I wish to hereby register my indignation on behalf of all generously-sized people worldwide.

    14. Rayyan — on 11th January, 2009 at 10:07 am  

      The future head of state of our country uses not one but two racial slurs and we are supposed to laugh it off as something normal, or detract from what he has done by saying “well I have black friends and they don’t mind me using racially offensive slurs against them so it must be okay” etc etc.

      Clearly some people don’t consider racism a bad thing.

    15. El Cid — on 11th January, 2009 at 10:49 am  

      Hmmm. Don’t you think that you should give credit where credit is due i.e. by naming the paper which broke the story?

    16. chairwoman — on 11th January, 2009 at 11:05 am  

      Ahem - Prince Harry is not the future head of state of this or any other country.

    17. Ms_Xtreme — on 11th January, 2009 at 11:09 am  

      and shows Harry as just a normal bloke.

      He’s not just a normal bloke though. With celebrity/royal status comes certain standards of conduct within the public eye. He’d not run around naked outside Buckingham Palace, so why not watch what he says in public - not to mention on video, for possible playback to the WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD. Sadly society doesn’t demote such people when they eff up massively not only once, but many times - instead, they just get more popular.

      Idiot.

    18. Rayyan — on 11th January, 2009 at 11:48 am  

      Chairwoman - my mistake, Harry is but third in line to the royal succession. That does mean he has a greater chance to become head of state than anyone else in the country other than his brother - the Queen is likely to outlast Charles. Still, that doesn’t make his behaviour any more acceptable.

    19. platinum786 — on 11th January, 2009 at 12:25 pm  

      It’s not correct behavior, but it’s behavior I’ve come to expect from young people within society today and I can understand how it is a laugh and a joke with the lads. The problem is how seriously this turns from a joke to the real deal, you could call me a paki as a joke and you could also call me a paki followed by a kick to my head. The same terms can be used in malice.

      Also it must be taken into consideration that the army is an institutionally racist organization, what is to say Ahmed was not offended and (a) had no one to tell who gives a damn and (b) accepted it to fit in with a group of young white men who he’d have to rely on in combat?

    20. tanvir — on 11th January, 2009 at 12:26 pm  

      Cant believe this was getting so much airtime on sky when more important things are going on in the world.

    21. SE — on 11th January, 2009 at 12:28 pm  

      I have to agree about the Army being institutionally racist, not far off from the Klan, is it?

      Brown people just shouldn’t sign-up with these council estate leaches (most army men).

    22. SE — on 11th January, 2009 at 12:29 pm  

      @tanvir:
      You mean like Israel murdering brown people?

    23. chairwoman — on 11th January, 2009 at 1:41 pm  

      Rayvan - There’s little chance that Harry’ll become King, now that this latest ‘faux pas’ is public property, the Palace will encourage William to marry Kate asap and produce the obligatory heir and spare.

      You must also be aware that I neither do, nor countenance racial abuse.

      SE - I don’t know what to say to you. Your comments in general make me sad. You obviously feel prejudiced against (and I’m not saying that isn’t the case), and are extremely unhappy.

      Forty years ago I saw that the UK was breeding a generation that would feel as you do if it didn’t give black and brown youngsters equal opportunities, but I was just a kid myself and had no platform. All my friends at the time felt the same, but I’m afraid in those days that didn’t go for everybody.

      There was a job that I didn’t get because I was Jewish, they didn’t say it of course, and the late Chairman was refused a job because he was Roman Catholic. A friend whose parents came from Belfast told me that there used to be flats to let advertisements that said ‘No Papists’, and my parents remembered when similar ads here in London said ‘No, Blacks, Jews, Irish or dogs’.

      So things are improving. I hope you find peace of mind.

    24. Sid — on 11th January, 2009 at 1:53 pm  

      I am amazed by the utter triviality of this non-story about a non-entity.

    25. Rayyan — on 11th January, 2009 at 2:02 pm  

      I am amazed our taxes are being spent on this non-entity to be in such a public position and still believe it is acceptable to throw around racist slurs and wear racially offensive costumes, and the fact that this raises questions over how tolerant our society is when its most expensively educated are so stupid is not of greater concern to some - when people hear he’s said stuff like this, and he inevitably gets away with it, it will give a lot of stupid people licence to say that stuff too.

    26. Jai — on 11th January, 2009 at 2:12 pm  

      It’s not correct behavior, but it’s behavior I’ve come to expect from young people within society today and I can understand how it is a laugh and a joke with the lads. The problem is how seriously this turns from a joke to the real deal, you could call me a paki as a joke and you could also call me a paki followed by a kick to my head. The same terms can be used in malice.

      Also it must be taken into consideration that the army is an institutionally racist organization, what is to say Ahmed was not offended and (a) had no one to tell who gives a damn and (b) accepted it to fit in with a group of young white men who he’d have to rely on in combat?

      Breaking News: Jai actually agrees completely with everything Platinum786 has said above ! And they said this day could never happen.

      I reckon the unusually chilly weather we’re currently experiencing is because Hell really has frozen over. Who knew ?

    27. Steve M — on 11th January, 2009 at 2:29 pm  

      “SE - I don’t know what to say to you. Your comments in general make me sad. You obviously feel prejudiced against (and I’m not saying that isn’t the case), and are extremely unhappy.” - chairwoman

      Wow, I look and I learn, chairwoman. I just resort to sarcasm and subtle insults. Kudos to you, your way is far better.

    28. chairwoman — on 11th January, 2009 at 2:38 pm  

      Steve M - The personal satisfaction of the sarcasm and subtle insult is not unknown to me :-) , but I feel we should try to gain some common ground here if we can ever hope to have any influence there.

      And anyway, I meant it. Such misery. So sad.

    29. Jai — on 11th January, 2009 at 2:42 pm  

      As usual, Chris Rock nailed it best. In his recent “Kill the Messenger” gig, he had an interesting response to a question by one of his white friends about “when it’s okay for a white person to use the word ‘nigger’”. Unfortunately the clip’s been removed from Youtube due to copyright issues, but Chris’s sarcastic thoughts on the single hypothetical instance when he thought it would be acceptable were along these lines:

      “If you’re out shopping on Christmas Eve, and it’s between 4.30 and 4.40pm, and you’re carrying a pile of presents, and some black guy suddenly comes out of nowhere and attacks you, jumps up and down on your head while saying ‘cracker motherfucker’, then urinates on you, and finally runs away with your shopping, then it’s okay for you to shout “SOMEBODY STOP THAT NIGGER !!!”.

      I think Mr Rock made the point brilliantly and very effectively ;)

      Exactly the same logic applies to the “acceptability” of white British people using the term “Paki”, even if they’re supposedly friends with the target.

    30. Jai — on 11th January, 2009 at 2:44 pm  

      To make the point more seriously, let me re-iterate something I’ve previously said a couple of times on PP:

      IT IS AS UNACCEPTABLE FOR A WHITE BRITISH PERSON TO USE THE TERM “PAKI” IN REFERENCE TO AN ASIAN PERSON AS IT WOULD BE FOR A WHITE BRITISH PERSON OR A WHITE AMERICAN TO USE THE TERM “NIGGER” IN REFERENCE TO A BLACK PERSON.

      THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SITUATIONS AND THE DEROGATORY, OFFENSIVE NATURE OF THE EPITHETS FROM THE PERSPECTIVES OF ASIANS AND BLACK PEOPLE RESPECTIVELY. REGARDLESS OF “INTENT”, “CONTEXT”, ETC ETC.

      I’ve used capital letters due to the necessity for apologists and those generally confused about the matter to finally get this through their heads once and for all.

    31. Steve M — on 11th January, 2009 at 2:52 pm  

      It is also unacceptable for a white British person to use the terms “Yid” or “Kike” in reference to a Jewish person, unless that person is a supporter of Tottenham Hotspur football club (who turned some anti-Semitism on its head by deciding to call themselves “The Yids”).

    32. El Cid — on 11th January, 2009 at 2:52 pm  

      Yawn

    33. Jai — on 11th January, 2009 at 3:04 pm  

      Steve M,

      I think that due to the historical background, a more analogous example would be a modern-day German person using an extremely derogatory term in reference to a Jewish person, but yes it should be unacceptable here in the UK too.

    34. Trofim — on 11th January, 2009 at 3:16 pm  

      And jai, and similar people:
      who decides what is “acceptable” - would it be a special committee of “experts”, with associated policing powers, or - would it be, for instance, you? Who enforces the rules? Who decides who knows best, who is an expert?

      In a free society, individuals are free to make their own formal and informal contracts in all areas of life. If X says Y can call him “paki”, and Y indicates that X is free to call him “white wanker”, or whatever other terms they might wish to employ, it is none of your business, or of anyone elses. This is the essence of the authoritarian mind - to control other people’s affairs.

    35. Sunny — on 11th January, 2009 at 3:27 pm  

      Was on BBC News 24 this morning talking about it. Can’t get too excited about it - Harry was an immature twat and may remain so.

      I am slightly shocked at the casual way in which he says those words ‘raghead’ or ‘paki’… the former is definitely something that went out of fashion in the 80s. Which kind of stupid people still use it regularly?

    36. Jai — on 11th January, 2009 at 3:31 pm  

      who decides what is “acceptable” -

      The same people in Britain and the US who decide whether it is acceptable for white people to refer to black people as ‘niggers’ in any given situation.

      In a free society, individuals are free to make their own formal and informal contracts in all areas of life. If X says Y can call him “paki”, and Y indicates that X is free to call him “white wanker”, or whatever other terms they might wish to employ, it is none of your business, or of anyone elses. This is the essence of the authoritarian mind - to control other people’s affairs.

      Good for you. See above.

    37. Leon — on 11th January, 2009 at 3:35 pm  

      Don’t you think that you should give credit where credit is due i.e. by naming the paper which broke the story?

      No.

    38. persephone — on 11th January, 2009 at 5:35 pm  

      As one of Harry’s many paymasters, I think his civil list salary should be performance related. When he messes up there should be a decrease or demotion from being in line to the throne (dependent upon what his does)- otherwise why are we funding someone who is not a good role model for the UK?

      Saying paki or raghead & wearing Nazi uniforms etc does not exactly meet the royal job description - for jo public it could lead to employment tribunal territory (being in your early 20’s would not be a defence). The same goes for Prince Philip.

    39. Johnny — on 11th January, 2009 at 6:25 pm  

      Well his mother was in a very long love affair with a Pakistani heart surgeoun and when he left her she had a rebound love affair with an Egyptian man, maybe Harry has issues with that.

      As Trofim is just one speck of an example, on the message boards and radio phone ins, there is an outpouring from the lumpen racist cunts in this country who try to suggest that calling someone a Paki is equivalent to calling someone an ‘Aussie’, and nothing at all like calling someone a Nigger. Never lose sight of how much racism is still out there folks, as much in the media as amongst the cunts on the street.

    40. Ravi Naik — on 11th January, 2009 at 7:36 pm  

      Price Harry is no racist - he is clueless, pretty much like his generation. Asians in Harry’s generation also did not endure the racism of the 70s, and for them, the term “Paki” is not as racially charged, and as a consequence many of them call themselves as “Pakis”.

      I also do not see how “nigger” can be equated to “paki”. The term “nigger” was used during the slavery, during the lynchings, when Blacks were officially considered 3/5th of a man.

      The irony is that all the tabloids who regularly demonise Muslims and other minorities, are now chastising Harry for using a 4-letter word. Harry should not have used that word because it is lowbrow, and really does not dignify the royals.

      I would focus on real racism - one that it is still a reality in this country, not on childish name calling.

    41. Refresh — on 11th January, 2009 at 7:59 pm  

      SE, What have you got against people from council estates?

    42. Don — on 11th January, 2009 at 8:01 pm  

      SE has something against a lot of people.

    43. SE — on 11th January, 2009 at 8:12 pm  

      “The irony is that all the tabloids who regularly demonize Muslims and other minorities, are now chastising Harry for using a 4-letter word.”

      Nope, The Daily Mail are probably applauding him.

    44. SE — on 11th January, 2009 at 8:25 pm  

      “Forty years ago I saw that the UK was breeding a generation that would feel as you do if it didn’t give black and brown youngsters equal opportunities,”

      Yeah a little group called the BNP doesn’t exist or Christian Voice or any righty fundamentalist party that wants to outright murder or wipe out brown people.

      On top of that the support Israel is getting from people who abhor brown people and fundamentalists/evangelicals.

      May i remind you that the BNP were also let into the elections this year or have you forgotten that already?

      Shilpa Shetty who was a fucking bollywood star treated like crap from fucking Liverpudlian tarts.

      Bollywood stars filming in the UK getting racist chants getting thrown at them

      and now THIS.

      So this ‘Racism, especially for brown people is dead’ crap is pretty damn delusional.

    45. Refresh — on 11th January, 2009 at 8:34 pm  

      Liverpudlians? Who next, I wonder.

    46. chairwoman — on 11th January, 2009 at 10:07 pm  

      He’s looked at my blog and discovered that the Chairman was a Scouser,

      Did I say anywhere that racism especially for brown people is dead?

    47. El Cid — on 11th January, 2009 at 10:11 pm  

      Leon, why?
      You always cite the broadsheets when they are the source. Tabloids break stories — sometimes very good stories.
      Get out of your public school pompous bunker.

    48. Katy Newton — on 11th January, 2009 at 10:19 pm  

      So this ‘Racism, especially for brown people is dead’ crap is pretty damn delusional.

      “Delusional” is definitely the word that’s springing to my mind.

    49. Sunny — on 11th January, 2009 at 10:31 pm  

      SE - if all you’re going to do is spout off racist crap on this site like some nutbag, this is not the place. I’m sick of deleting your shit. Either fix up, or fuck off.

    50. Johnny — on 11th January, 2009 at 10:52 pm  

      Asians in Harry’s generation also did not endure the racism of the 70s, and for them, the term “Paki” is not as racially charged, and as a consequence many of them call themselves as “Pakis”

      Black people call each other ‘nigger’, it doesn’t mean it would be alright for Harry to call a black officer a nigger. The first part of your point is just bizarre. If you think that Paki is still not a racially loaded term of abuse even though its not as ubiquitous as it was in the 1970’s you’re in cloud cuckoo land. I mean seriously, you’re living in a looney tunes cartoon if you believe that. If you have any children, let me know how you feel about the specificity of that word if it’s spat at your children as it was my niece the other weekend.

      The rest of your post seems to say you can’t condemn this whilst combatting structural racist discrimination elsewhere in society. It’s not a zero sum game, and you bloody well can do both at the same time.

    51. Steve M — on 11th January, 2009 at 11:02 pm  

      The term ‘Paki’ is disgraceful and it’s application by non-Asian people in an extremely racist context, for many years, must have contributed to the alienation that many Pakistanis feel in British society today.

      Having said that, this was a case of ‘army talk’ amongst mates and to understand how bad it was in that context one would have to get the views of the people involved. I don’t know.

    52. mr_x — on 11th January, 2009 at 11:14 pm  

      agree with plat786 above.

      as i said on that milk based sweets site, its all fine if its just a ‘game’ between mates, just as long as harrys ‘paki friend’ ahmed gets to call harry his ‘blotchy honky friend’ in return.

    53. Refresh — on 11th January, 2009 at 11:42 pm  

      SteveM, it was unforgiveable. Not forgetting ‘raghead’.

      Attitudes of that nature need to expunged from a professional army, and the royal family.

    54. Ravi Naik — on 12th January, 2009 at 12:38 am  

      I have to say that - to me - it is far more offensive that we British Asians get offended by a 4 letter word, than the losers that use them.

      Yes, ‘paki’ denotes race, and so does the terms “Asian” and “brown”. In fact, they are interchangeable, except that we are supposed to be offended, really offended, by the term “paki”, even though it denotes someone from a region in South Asia. If one is proud to be Asian and brown, then one needs to be proud to be a paki - because that’s what we are, so live with it.

      I am sick and tired of how infantile people are. Getting bullied, getting kicked on your head, getting discriminated based on your race, yes those are real problems.

      Being offended by a 4-letter word is simply infantile. We Asians should have higher self-esteem than that.

    55. Vikrant — on 12th January, 2009 at 5:37 am  

      THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SITUATIONS AND THE DEROGATORY, OFFENSIVE NATURE OF THE EPITHETS FROM THE PERSPECTIVES OF ASIANS AND BLACK PEOPLE RESPECTIVELY. REGARDLESS OF “INTENT”, “CONTEXT”, ETC ETC.

      I dont see the big deal here My friends from back home used to jokingly call me ‘Paki’. As for black people in the US, it is apparently ok for themeselves to use the n word, which i find kinda hypocritical. If you dont want to called something then dont use it to decribe yourselves!

      Being offended by a 4-letter word is simply infantile. We Asians should have higher self-esteem than that.

      I remember being called a Paki for the first time when i was 6. Unaware that it was meant as a racial insult, my reply was “I’m a bloody Indian!” haha..

    56. Golam Murtaza — on 12th January, 2009 at 6:35 am  

      I very rarely hear my Pakistani-origin friends call each other ‘Paki’, even as a joke. However, they do frequently use the term ‘Pak’. Only one letter’s difference but a completely different meaning apparently.

      In 2006, in Leeds, I was in the crown court watching Nick Griffin trying to justify use of the word ‘Paki’ on the grounds that it just means ‘pure’. So supposedly whenever he uses it he’s actually being complimentary. Yes Nick, whatever you say…

    57. Trofim — on 12th January, 2009 at 7:16 am  

      Ravi Naik: hang on, are you sure you’re supposed to voice common sense on this forum? That vikrant is coming perilously close to doing so too. You should be more careful.

    58. Leon — on 12th January, 2009 at 10:47 am  

      You always cite the broadsheets when they are the source. Tabloids break stories — sometimes very good stories.
      Get out of your public school pompous bunker.

      Always? I normally use the BBC or Guardian, hardly always using broadsheets now is it? I used the Mirror link because someone emailed the writers with it.

      I actually didn’t know it was a NoTW story originally but even that isn’t really relevant, I use sources which contain the most detail/better written/interesting to read and never consciously choose to use the paper that broke a story.

      I gotta be honest mate, your snide remarks about class are long past boring (I never went to Public School!).

    59. Sofia — on 12th January, 2009 at 10:51 am  

      isn’t he just carrying on where his granddaddy left off…?

    60. marvin — on 12th January, 2009 at 11:01 am  

      Ravi, #40, #54 really good comments. #55 LOL Vikrant.

    61. Rumbold — on 12th January, 2009 at 11:17 am  

      El Cid:

      There are plenty of times when we link to stories that have appeared in other papers first. Usually the link is to the site where the writer saw it. Your criticism of Leon is baffling, and I am not sure what public schools have to do with it. I went to one, and I don’t remember the lesson about not linking to stories from tabloids on a blog. But maybe I was ill that day.

    62. Jai — on 12th January, 2009 at 11:44 am  

      Black people call each other ‘nigger’, it doesn’t mean it would be alright for Harry to call a black officer a nigger. The first part of your point is just bizarre. If you think that Paki is still not a racially loaded term of abuse even though its not as ubiquitous as it was in the 1970’s you’re in cloud cuckoo land. I mean seriously, you’re living in a looney tunes cartoon if you believe that. If you have any children, let me know how you feel about the specificity of that word if it’s spat at your children as it was my niece the other weekend…..The rest of your post seems to say you can’t condemn this whilst combatting structural racist discrimination elsewhere in society. It’s not a zero sum game, and you bloody well can do both at the same time.

      Exactly.

      The term ‘Paki’ is disgraceful and it’s application by non-Asian people in an extremely racist context, for many years, must have contributed to the alienation that many Pakistanis feel in British society today.

      Agreed. And Indians and other South Asians in the UK don’t exactly react well to it either.

      Having said that, this was a case of ‘army talk’ amongst mates

      Attitudes of that nature need to expunged from a professional army

      If this kind of behaviour is regarded as “normal” and “right” within the British military, as some guy on the phone on Sky News on Saturday night with an allegedly extensive insight into “squaddies” kept insisting (and trying to excuse, eg. “it’s not like working in Tescos”), then it means that there is one hell of a problem with institutional racism within the military. It really does need to be expunged — and, furthermore, it’s not exactly going to encourage other Asians to sign up for an unequivocal expression of patriotism such as joining the British armed forces if they think this is the kind of racist attitude they’ll have to face.

      Even worse was the fact that the guy being interviewed (noticeably becoming increasingly irate) ended up snapping “If they can’t accept this kind of behaviour then they should just get out”. The sheer, unapologetic arrogance…..What’s next, telling Asians (and other non-white Brits) that if they can’t handle racism in British society in general then they should just leave the country ?!

      And why should the military be exempt from expectations of civilised attitudes towards members of racial minorities which are required in the rest of society ?

    63. Jai — on 12th January, 2009 at 12:21 pm  

      Ravi,

      I also do not see how “nigger” can be equated to “paki”. The term “nigger” was used during the slavery, during the lynchings, when Blacks were officially considered 3/5th of a man.

      1. I’m sure you’re aware that there were also numerous terms of racial abuse that were used towards the inhabitants of the subcontinent by some of the visitors from Ol’ Blighty during colonial times too. “Paki” is a continuation of that, motivated by the same false notions of racial superiority, and the attitudes behind it are a legacy of those historical events and the dynamics involved between the two groups.

      2. By your logic, usage of the term “nigger” by modern-day white British people is less offensive/more acceptable than usage of the term by white Americans. I would strongly disagree and I’m sure plenty of black Brits would feel the same way.

      3. It’s not just the words which are the problem but the attitudes underlying them and the historical context involved. As with racism towards black people by white Brits and Americans, this isn’t just about people being “different”, it’s about viewing them as intrinsically inferior and acceptable targets for abuse due to historical issues concerning colonialism, subjugation, and so on. “Name calling”, as you put it, is frequently a manifestation of those attitudes; which is the fundamental problem, and the reason why many people get so pissed off about this sort of thing. It’s not just about the words in isolation.

      When someone deliberately calls you a “Paki”, the word doesn’t just mean “Asian”. There is a whole historical context behind the attitudes behind it and why the term of abuse was originally used — along with the presumed dynamic and imbalance between you and the perpetrator which the other party is attempting to imply and impose on you — and although this certainly doesn’t mean that Prince Harry himself necessarily implied the same things or was motivated by genuinely malicious reasons, the term itself isn’t as innocuous or as simplistic as you think.

    64. Kismet Hardy — on 12th January, 2009 at 12:28 pm  

      As someone that went to public school and seeked validation from the upper class, how i longed to be refered to ‘as our little paki friend’. I daresay the Asian chap in question was proud to be referred to as ‘friend’. I’m sure he feels the same pride having his head flushed down the toilet, as I did. We don’t get noticed much, us brown people among the elite, and welcome a little ribbing and beating and psychological damage as it makes us better people in the end. Well done, my prince. I worship you

    65. Sofia — on 12th January, 2009 at 1:25 pm  

      it doesn’t matter if you change your name like ‘James Caan’ of dragon’s den..or join the British Army…by some you’ll still be the little ‘paki’

    66. Shamit — on 12th January, 2009 at 1:33 pm  

      “When someone deliberately calls you a “Paki”, the word doesn’t just mean “Asian”. There is a whole historical context behind the attitudes behind it and why the term of abuse was originally used — along with the presumed dynamic and imbalance between you and the perpetrator which the other party is attempting to imply and impose on you — and although this certainly doesn’t mean that Prince Harry himself necessarily implied the same things or was motivated by genuinely malicious reasons, the term itself isn’t as innocuous or as simplistic as you think.”

      Damn son — that is good. Well said Jai.

    67. Jason — on 12th January, 2009 at 1:33 pm  

      Only in today’s P.C. world does one man desire to hate his enemy translate into a negative thing. I think this prince is awesome. He has the guts to say what we all think. ( And only some of us say)Go Harry. Do not let them make you apologies.

    68. Jason — on 12th January, 2009 at 1:33 pm  

      Only in today’s P.C. world does one mans desire to hate his enemy translate into a negative thing. I think this prince is awesome. He has the guts to say what we all think. ( And only some of us say)Go Harry. Do not let them make you apologies.

    69. Sofia — on 12th January, 2009 at 1:42 pm  

      Jason…I presuume by ‘we all’ you mean people as bigoted as you?

    70. Shamit — on 12th January, 2009 at 1:49 pm  

      Sofia

      Jason has constipation in his brain while simultaneously having a bad case of vocal diarrhoea. The thing is he wont have the guts to say what he just said in front of us — but the computer gives even idiots a voice. Too bad eh?

      I hope like Prince Harry and the other officer who Harry called a Paki he has got the guts to wear the country’s uniform and go into battle.. Nah, he rather disparage his fellow citizens — maybe he is a BNP member who probably has got less than 3 GCSCE — so inferiority complex may be causing that diarrhoea that I mention above.

    71. Leon — on 12th January, 2009 at 1:57 pm  

      I am not sure what public schools have to do with it. I went to one, and I don’t remember the lesson about not linking to stories from tabloids on a blog.

      :D

      This actually made me laugh out loud! :D

    72. Ravi Naik — on 12th January, 2009 at 2:25 pm  

      By your logic, usage of the term “nigger” by modern-day white British people is less offensive/more acceptable than usage of the term by white Americans… It’s not just the words which are the problem but the attitudes underlying them and the historical context involved

      Precisely, and that’s my point. If words have a historical and social context involved, then the term “nigger” will be differently charged here and in the US - in fact, it will be different in states like in the South and in the North. I would say that states where race is an issue, then such words are more polarising and dangerous. This is why I do not agree that we conflate ‘nigger’ with ‘paki’, because they have different historical and social contexts.

      When someone deliberately calls you a “Paki”, the word doesn’t just mean “Asian”. There is a whole historical context behind the attitudes behind it and why the term of abuse was originally used — along with the presumed dynamic and imbalance between you and the perpetrator

      One of the things I appreciated about Obama’s speech on race back in April was that while he acknowledged the great struggles of the previous generation, that many people of that generation didn’t acknowledge or couldn’t admit that things have changed, and thus, they were stuck with the same narrative as in the past. Certainly, the term “paki” is a historical artefact, and it is something we are giving it to our children, as if we nothing has changed in the last 40 years.

      I see the imbalance you talk about: a racist that calls me a “paki” is a loser, and the unbalance lies in the fact that he is weak and a racist. The mere fact that I am brown does not make me weak and vulnerable to 4-letter words. This is something I refuse to pass on to the next generation.

    73. Kismet Hardy — on 12th January, 2009 at 2:29 pm  

      Jason, unless you have an asian friend who’s a soldier and you really wish you had the ‘guts’ to call him a paki, I’m afraid the prince doesn’t speak for you. Although there’s nothing stopping you from putting a towel over your head and running around saying ‘ha ha, look at me I’m a raghead ha ha’. Enjoy and don’t forget to post in on you tube so we can all laugh with you

    74. Sofia — on 12th January, 2009 at 2:58 pm  

      maybe we can rename Harry the ‘ginger minger’..carrot top?

    75. Jai — on 12th January, 2009 at 3:29 pm  

      Precisely, and that’s my point. If words have a historical and social context involved, then the term “nigger” will be differently charged here and in the US - in fact, it will be different in states like in the South and in the North.

      So a black British person shouldn’t be as insulted and outraged as an African-American person if a white British person calls him a “nigger” ?

      Seriously ?

      This is why I do not agree that we conflate ‘nigger’ with ‘paki’, because they have different historical and social contexts.

      There are some differences but there are certainly also areas of overlap, most of all in relation to the historical dynamics that Africans (and swathes of Africa) and South Asians (and most of the subcontinent) had with Britain & British people during this country’s imperial period.

      One of the things I appreciated about Obama’s speech on race back in April was that while he acknowledged the great struggles of the previous generation, that many people of that generation didn’t acknowledge or couldn’t admit that things have changed, and thus, they were stuck with the same narrative as in the past. Certainly, the term “paki” is a historical artefact, and it is something we are giving it to our children, as if we nothing has changed in the last 40 years.

      You see, Ravi, it’s not British Asians who need to be reminded of this fact.

      It’s members of the white British population who still think it’s acceptable to use this term, who still have obsolete and highly misguided notions of their presumed intrinsic racial superiority over Asians due to the legacy of the colonial period and the bullshit perpetrated from the early 19th-century onwards to justify the actions undertaken in colonised countries inhabited by non-white people, who still bully, marginalise and discriminate against suitable targets from other ethnic groups due to their own racial neuroses (and use any amount of self-rationalising crap to justify it), and who still pass on this bullshit to their own children.

      In a nutshell, they need to be reminded that it’s 2009 not 1809.

      I see the imbalance you talk about: a racist that calls me a “paki” is a loser, and the unbalance lies in the fact that he is weak and a racist. The mere fact that I am brown does not make me weak and vulnerable to 4-letter words.

      You’re preaching to the converted. The people who need to hear this from you are white racists and their apologists who think it’s okay to call Asians “pakis”, especially if they expect to get away with it.

      This is something I refuse to pass on to the next generation.

      If Asians speak up sufficiently about the unacceptability of people referring to them as “pakis” then hopefully the next generation won’t have to face this kind of crap themselves.

    76. Shamit — on 12th January, 2009 at 4:50 pm  

      Being father of a toddler — I obviously do not want the next generation to face this kind of crap — as Jai put it eloquently.

      But Ravi, I would teach my son to take it personally if someone ever calls him a Paki and do something unpleasant.

      In school, our generation (at least in W. Midlands) were the first non-white groups to go to so called Public Schools and being called Paki and people loudly wondering how my parents could afford the fees was often the norm.

      Idiots like Jason here would love to put my son through the same experience and they should not be allowed to.

      Jai is spot on.

    77. Ravi Naik — on 12th January, 2009 at 6:21 pm  

      So a black British person shouldn’t be as insulted and outraged as an African-American person if a white British person calls him a “nigger” ?

      I am saying that you should not feel surprised if the same word gets a different reaction.

      It’s members of the white British population who still think it’s acceptable to use this term, who still have obsolete and highly misguided notions of their presumed intrinsic racial superiority over Asian

      Jai, if a racist shouts the word “paki” and no Asian gets offended, is he being offensive?

      I believe you will always have delusional people, who believe their race, ethnicity, religion, caste, socio-economic background is superior. To give delusional people, or any anonymous fuck, the power to hurt you with a 4-letter word, is self-defeatist.

      Jason’s comment (#67) is retarded - I wonder how many people here were offended. If people like him believe that they are racially superior even though they have trouble writing a rational sentence, then I say, let them. I certainly do not want to give them the power to offend me: not me or my children.

      But Ravi, I would teach my son to take it personally if someone ever calls him a Paki…Idiots like Jason here would love to put my son through the same experience and they should not be allowed to

      I would teach my child that there is no shame of being a paki, and to laugh at racists. And there is no way I am letting my children go through bullying or systematic abuse, independent of content. No child should go through that.

    78. Ravi Naik — on 12th January, 2009 at 6:29 pm  

      The judge’s rule pretty much says it all. We are in 2009 where Asians have a decent standing in Britain, to be aggravated by the term “Paki”.

    79. El Cid — on 12th January, 2009 at 8:19 pm  

      Rumbold, he’s sometimes comes across as a pompous arse….. I guess sourcing it to his public school upbringing was a natural choice.

      So why then Rumbers do you give credit to one source, and not another? Poor editorial standards?

    80. chairwoman — on 12th January, 2009 at 8:22 pm  

      My Black African American friend is furious if anyone, of any color, from any country, calls her ‘Nigger’ or ‘Blackie’.

    81. Katy Newton — on 12th January, 2009 at 8:23 pm  

      maybe we can rename Harry the ‘ginger minger’..carrot top?

      Those of us who fall within the Titian spectrum are uncomfortable about this proposal :-)

    82. Katy Newton — on 12th January, 2009 at 8:24 pm  

      *dabs ketchup and mayonnaise on El Cid’s shoulder*

    83. Rumbold — on 12th January, 2009 at 8:28 pm  

      El Cid:

      This is the system I follow:

      A Hat-tip if the story is e-mailed to me or pointed out in the comments.

      A Via if I see a story on a blog from elsewhere, but decide to link to the original article.

      A link to where I saw the story first.

      Leon is without a glimmer of pomposity, unlike myself. So I take care to remember the following: vir sapit qui pauca loquitur.

    84. El Cid — on 12th January, 2009 at 8:48 pm  

      vir sapit qui pauca loquitur?
      Sorry, you are going to have help me here.

      Look, are you trying to tell me that there isn’t some ridiculous anti-tabloid bias here?

    85. Leon — on 12th January, 2009 at 8:57 pm  

      he’s sometimes comes across as a pompous arse….. I guess sourcing it to his public school upbringing was a natural choice.

      Sheesh, get over yourself! If you met me in real life you’d laugh at yourself as much as I am now.

      Look, are you trying to tell me that there isn’t some ridiculous anti-tabloid bias here?

      Haha! Yeah we’re rabid man, utterly rabid. We can’t stand common people’s rags er I mean holy tabloid scriptures! :D

    86. Leon — on 12th January, 2009 at 8:59 pm  

      Leon is without a glimmer of pomposity, unlike myself.

      Don’t be so harsh on yourself, you’re a top bloke. Sure we don’t have the same politics but you made complete sense to me when I met you in real life.

    87. El Cid — on 12th January, 2009 at 9:03 pm  

      You have succeeded in making me feel bad. So sorry for being rude.
      Good sourcing is the holy grail of good journalism.
      I sometimes forget that this is a political blog not a neutral news blog.

    88. Leon — on 12th January, 2009 at 9:09 pm  

      Don’t want you to feel bad mate, just stop with the snide remarks about people’s class (especially as you really have no clue about our backgrounds). I did source it, I gave totally honest and valid reasons for how I sourced it.

      Btw, if you’re hoping for the universe to give you a neutral news blog you’re in for a very loooong wait. There’s no such thing; every news outlet, whether blog, radio, newspaper or tv, has an agenda. Apart from the BBC, which is perfect.

    89. Rumbold — on 12th January, 2009 at 9:12 pm  

      El Cid:

      Rough translation- It is a wise man who speaks little.

      I was just trying to wind you up a bit anyway. If I see a story, for example, in the Telegraph, I link to that. I don’t bother to check which newspaper reported it first. Partly because it is time consuming, partly because it is often difficult to tell, but also because it only matters so much.

      Leon:

      Thanks- I was half-joking anyway. I only really said it so I could hjustify slipping in a Latin quotation.

    90. Rumbold — on 12th January, 2009 at 9:15 pm  

      El Cid:

      Look at my last blog post. I linked to stories in the BBC and the Guardian without mentioning either. The link is the footnote.

    91. El Cid — on 12th January, 2009 at 9:20 pm  

      Hold your horses guys.
      Rumbers, in my experience people who don’t say much aren’t particularly wise but, rather, haven’t got much to say. (People who quote Latin even less :) ) Sorry to disappoint you.
      And 2) if I ever catch PP giving credit to broadsheets in the text and conspicuously not doing so when it’s a tabloid, I will assume there is a deluded class bias at work. You have been warned.

    92. Rumbold — on 12th January, 2009 at 9:24 pm  

      I know, I was joking.

      “if I ever catch PP giving credit to broadsheets in the text and conspicuously not doing so when it’s a tabloid, I will assume there is a deluded class bias at work. You have been warned.”

      Is this the start of Pickled Politics watch? Heh.

    93. Amrit — on 12th January, 2009 at 9:41 pm  

      Another thread for the imaginary wall…

      LMAO. Sofia’s ‘carrot-top’ cuss-out, Katy’s condiment-based comment and the three-way Leon-El Cid-Rumbold tussle… all highly amusing.

      Une petite question: How much is this a race issue, and how much a class issue?

      I mean, is Prince Harry’s sense of being able to do something like this related to his being royal, his being white, or both?

      Just my tuppeny worth :-P

    94. persephone — on 12th January, 2009 at 9:53 pm  

      ” How much is this a race issue, and how much a class issue?”

      Well spotted Amrit. An allied question: how much is the class issue relating to the writers/commenters rather than prince harry …?

    95. Amrit — on 12th January, 2009 at 9:58 pm  

      Well persephone, looking at the three-way I just mentioned, I’d say it’s vitally important to some and not to others.

      I really think this is a class issue much more than anything else. This is Britain, ferChrissakes! Even when we have racism here, it often gets transmogrified into a class issue.

      Trans: as a rich, overprivileged twat who knows he will be shored up by other people’s money for the rest of his life, Prince Harry feels he has the right to be uncouth. I really don’t think it’s a race thing. I don’t think he’s quite smart enough to even entertain the notion of considering himself superior to non-whites.

      I mean ‘Ahmed’ could have filmed the event… but no, Harry did it himself. Talk about giving idiots rope for their own noose, etc. etc.

    96. Vikrant — on 13th January, 2009 at 5:02 am  

      Haha El Cid has had an issue with public schools (and Chelsea supporter) for a long time as far as i can remember.

      As someone that went to public school and seeked validation from the upper class, how i longed to be refered to ‘as our little paki friend’.

      I went to a public school where i was only one of the few ‘Paki lads’ in the class. And yes at times i was referred to as ‘our Paki friend’. But it was usually meant as a joke. I would simply retort ‘dirty goras!’.

      It’s members of the white British population who still think it’s acceptable to use this term, who still have obsolete and highly misguided notions of their presumed intrinsic racial superiority over Asians due to the legacy of the colonial period and the bullshit perpetrated from the early 19th-century onwards to justify the actions undertaken in colonised countries inhabited by non-white people, who still bully, marginalise and discriminate against suitable targets from other ethnic groups due to their own racial neuroses (and use any amount of self-rationalising crap to justify it), and who still pass on this bullshit to their own children.

      Jai while i agree with your comment, i must say it can be used as a term of genuine affection at times! I dated this white lass until i moved here to the States. At times she’d call me ‘her bleedin Paki’. I doubt that shed have dated me in the first place if she had some racial superiority complex.

      Jai, if a racist shouts the word “paki” and no Asian gets offended, is he being offensive?

      I believe you will always have delusional people, who believe their race, ethnicity, religion, caste, socio-economic background is superior. To give delusional people, or any anonymous fuck, the power to hurt you with a 4-letter word, is self-defeatist.

      Precisely!

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.